18 Burst results for "Charlie Savage"

"charlie savage" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

01:40 min | Last month

"charlie savage" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

"It's better than federal prison. It must be. I mean. I'm just gonna go ahead and go out on that limb unless you're home really sucks and you know you're going back to like an abusive spouse or something like that. Then it could be much worse I guess so but presuming. Your home is decent place in somewhere somewhere. You like to be the new york times. Charlie savage in solon kinda young's reporting that biden's legal teams decided to thousands of federal convicts. Who were sent back home to reduce the risk of spreading. Cova will be required by law to return to prison a month after the official state of emergency for the pandemic ends officials said on monday. They've come under pressure from criminal justice reform advocates and some lawmakers to revoke the trump era memo by the justice department's office of legal counsel which said that inmates who sentences last beyond the pandemic emergency period would have to go back to prison. So this was stupid. If they're doing just fine under home detention. Then do that in. If the we are they trying to say that the corona virus thing is over then they need to open all the courts in well. I don't know when the State of emergency is going to end at least at the federal level. We know it's ended here in new hampshire that.

Charlie savage Cova biden the new york times office of legal counsel justice department young new hampshire
The Real Story Behind The Don McGahn DOJ Subpoena

Mark Levin

02:33 min | 3 months ago

The Real Story Behind The Don McGahn DOJ Subpoena

"Great website. Theresa Munro Hamilton reports that the Department of Justice under the Trump administration secretly subpoenaed information. And former White House counsel Don McGahn, a Democrat. Rep. Adam Schiff, it was leaked to The New York Times, of course, seem to be falling apart. There's no real spying allegedly took place. The story was written by Michael Schmidt. He's a hack Charlie Savage, a hack. Reported quote that the DOJ secretly subpoenaed Apple for personal information on again and his wife in February, 18. And then barred Apple from telling them about the reported move during that time period under a non disclosure agreement. The devil appears to be in the details here, and this may not be the breaking story. The media are apparently running with Schmidt tweeted quote New DOJ secretly subpoenaed Apple for personal info of Trump's then White House done council dime again and his wife in February, 18. The O. J. Bard Apple from telling them at the time, But three years later, May 21 Apple told them. It's unclear what investigation it was related to Clarifying an interesting tweet was then issued by Savage. The co author. Quote, Apple recently told Don McGahn, Trump's former White House counsel. That the Justice Department had secret collected data about his account of a February 2018 subpoena. Caution. You can't conclude from this fact them again was intentionally targeted. It began was not intentionally targeted. Then the whole story is evidently not what was purported to be, You understand, folks. That is for investigating a leak, and there's a whole bunch of people that they're looking into. They're not supposed to investigate a leak. Apparently, that's the case, particularly if it That benefits the Democrats and hurts the country. The accusations do not go into detail about the DOJ investigation. It's unknown what federal investigators were looking into. Even if McGann himself was their primary focus, or whether it was somebody had contact with Apple reportedly did not inform again what they had turned over to DOJ. Report did state that Apple received them again subpoena weeks after another subpoena was issue that was connected to leaks and the Russia probe. The subpoena involves records belonging to California Democratic representatives, Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell. Again. The subpoenas were ostensibly an attempt to identify individuals who leak classified national security information. During Trump administration and were not specifically targeting shift. So they're throwing a

Don Mcgahn Apple Trump Administration DOJ Theresa Munro Hamilton Rep. Adam Schiff Charlie Savage Michael Schmidt White House Department Of Justice The New York Times Schmidt Donald Trump Justice Department Savage Mcgann Eric Swalwell Adam Schiff
"charlie savage" Discussed on Primary Ride Home

Primary Ride Home

04:34 min | 2 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on Primary Ride Home

"Okay true story time. When I graduated from high school I went down to the library and got a book on Stock Picking and pick a bunch of total jokers by following this weird word magical thinking strategy involving curves and the Dow and all this weird stuff anyway. My first five stock picks all went down the drain and there is a lesson there do some research on an actual company rather than using some bizarre magic formula and that's where my Wall Street comes in my Wall Street does the research and they tell you about stock stocks. They think are solid and why get actual facts about actual companies. My Wall Street helps you. Enter the investing with a trustworthy partner at your side or if you're already. Are there and you want some excellent research. This is the tool you need so check it out. Election Reid homelessness can access the entire my Wall Street APP all that research four free and he's a for thirty days instead of the normal seven day free trial after a full month you can stick with their expert guidance for just ninety nine a month so visit my wall. Oh S. T. dot com slash ride to download the APP now and get access to their market beating stock picks and expert guidance again. That link is spell my Wall L. S. T. dot com slash ride yesterday. The New York Times published a massive feature titled. We asked twenty twenty candidates how they would wheeled presidential power. Here's what they said and it's just what you think reading from the Intro by Charlie savage quote American political fights often turn on interpretations of executive power weather and win the president May Act without Congressional approval or defy federal statutes particularly in matters of war secrecy and law enforcement forcement the Times sent a survey to the presidential candidates about their understanding of the scope and limits of the authority they would wield if elected the candidates also detailed any potential new curbs on White House power they would be willing to sign into law and quote and then there are sixteen candidates who responded including Joe Walsh and bill well on the Republican side but the Times piece this is missing a handful of major candidates reading again from the fine print at the bottom quote in June. I sent a questionnaire to candidates challenging president trump in the two thousand twenty election. I'd I'd also conducted this survey in each of the past three primary campaigns several other candidates were also invited to participate but have not yet answered the questions including build a blasios Julio Castro John Delaney Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang The Times will update this graphic if and went any of them provide answers before they dropped out of the race. John Hickenlooper answered the questions and curious Gillibrand provided general statement. Mr De Blasio also provided a statement and quote both those statements and they hickenlooper answers are linked in the article at the way bottom now. This survey is way long with eleven topic areas and I'm not gonna read like five minutes quotes here but there is a huge pile of text over the New York Times Lincoln the show notes of course covering a bunch of topics. This is everything from freedom of the press to military power to whether sitting presidents president can be indicted. This is a terrific way to look at how specific candidates choose to respond to these complex questions some of them offer simple short direct answers. There's others give what are essentially essays response and most fall somewhere in between but one of the most fascinating questions to me is number ten for the question is incredibly. Lee's short and simple. They simply ask quote who are your campaigns advisors for legal issues and quote of the sixteen candidates who were asked only five five gave what I consider to be a real answer. Most of them simply did not answer at all or others gave an answer saying they didn't really want to tell the times or might do do it later or whatever and that includes by the way the entire top three of the Democratic field they all gave non answers here. It's a pretty simple question question so you have to give credit to people who actually answered the question for example Bill. Weld's answer was quote Nicholas Rostow. Rj Lyman Martin skuld and quote that is an answer at his concrete and unambiguous and points to weld now. Let's briefly look at another example. Elizabeth Warren Warren responded quote my campaign relies on and appreciates advice and guidance from a variety of legal scholars and practitioners and quote that is a non answer the question what specifically who these people are not whether they exist or whether you appreciate them so check out the link digging for entre policy stuff and a few pretty pretty notable non answers.

president Times The New York Times John Hickenlooper Rj Lyman Martin skuld Julio Castro John Delaney Tom Elizabeth Warren Warren Nicholas Rostow Charlie savage Mr De Blasio Reid partner Weld White House Lee Joe Walsh Gillibrand the Times
"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

01:49 min | 2 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

"And that's why we were sort of paralyzed in this increasingly tattered legal authority remains the defacto bases of what the US government through three presidents now is doing you're right that the executive branch is desperate to keep this from coming before a judge in particular, the the stretching of it to ISIS, which is not part of al-qaeda anymore. And in fact, is at war with Al Qaeda was a is something they don't they don't wanna test. And they don't that. That's why they haven't brought any ISIS detainees to one Tahoe. Despite all Trump's saber rattling about how he's gonna fill it up back up with bad guys. Bad dudes. He's not brought a single prisoner there. And that is because. That would immediately give someone standing to challenge. The theory that the authorizes the war against ISIS and the judge would rule. No, that's a step too, far that wouldn't just result in there, not being thirty to hold that particular person. It would mean the entire war effort against ISIS was has no legal basis. It would just mess things up from top to bottom. And that's why they've been also in the case that you mentioned this this dual US Saudi citizen that was held for a year. They were desperate to get rid of him before they had to test whether they have legal authority to hold them in the first place, which is why he's now a free, man. In bahrain. Sounds like a good topic for the next book tale. Charlie savage. Thank you can listen to your book power wars, the relentless rise of presidential authority and secrecy on audible. It's a great lesson. Thanks, charlie. Thank you. Thank you for. Joining us words matter will be right back here next week. We hope you will be too. Thank you. For listening to words matter. Please rate and review words matter on apple podcasts and other podcasts providers.

US ISIS Trump Charlie savage bahrain al-qaeda executive apple
"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

03:10 min | 2 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

"Again. It's just basically the the takeaway is that in one way or another presidents have found ways to continue to deploy forces into combat type situations since nineteen seventy four on their own and the warp house resolution has been a failure as an attempt to reign in that practice, which was sort of a hallmark of the imperial presidency era post World War Two dating back to Truman going into Korea by himself, one of the things that congress did do, and you mentioned this earlier, the the legal lynchpin for the modern war on terror and many of the things that that the country has done in that vein is the authorisation for the use of military force. And you spoke about it earlier that keeps getting applied and keeps getting extended. Do you think maybe we're reaching the end of the road for the application? Of the AM because for one it was originally passed as applied to Al Qaeda, and it hasn't to my knowledge been applied by the government, certainly in any court to the Islamic state. And I think the evidence for that. Most recently is that the US government was detaining an American citizen abroad and the question of whether the A M F apply to the Islamic state was gonna come up in the validity of that detention. But it kind of resolved itself before the DC circuit in this case was able to answer that question. Do you think we're reaching the end of the road in in the application of the AM FM in those expanded powers under that authorization? Yes, though, it has been the case for some years now various people in congress press, most notably Senator Tim Kaine Virginia have been arguing that the the of of two thousand one has been stretched too far. You know, it wasn't even actually against Okita. It was against the purpose. Traders of the nine eleven attacks who are for the most part dead suffers our here in the few guys down at Guantanamo who maybe someday, we'll get a trial. But there's been tremendous difficulty in congress in the question of well, if we reject the executive branches stretching of it to apply to what it's doing today. What do we replace it with in? The problem is that some people don't want to place any new limits on the presidents of the executive branch of thirty. They will not stand for taking power away from from the executive branch to do what is currently doing in places like Somalia and Yemen and so forth. That's the sort of like, the Senator Tom cotton point of view and other people's which Democrats don't want to write a new blank check for a forever war. So they well, let's let's replace it with an AM that won't last three years, and then we'll sunset or that will not permit. You know, the president to use ground forces in some new place that he's not used without first coming to congress. And so and so they're not gonna vote. For two there's a faction for blinked check. There's a faction that will only vote for a blank check. And there's not not clear that that point. There's any purpose that anything can get through congress that would command majority support or or filibuster proof support..

congress president Senator Tim Kaine Virginia executive Senator Tom cotton US Truman Korea Guantanamo Okita Somalia Yemen three years
"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

04:24 min | 2 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

"He may be that. He's the only person who can can can keep the United States from being at war in places like Somalia and Pakistan and Yemen for the next hundred years for better or worse. So that's you know, we'll see we're only two years into this. But it's fascinating in dynamic doesn't often remarked upon in that respect one of the things I was struck by listening to your book was when I first started politics, and you start for started covering government and all these issues. There was always a discussion about the War Powers Act is nine hundred ninety one when present I President Bush went into Iraq. And when President Clinton took certain actions in the nineteen nineties. I don't hear that anymore. I don't hear that ever. And I was nine eleven that demarcation point, and we just stopped talking about that. Is it more of our discussion about congress ceding power to the executive or is it just something that is in operative now in a? Twenty-first-century century world that article to power is has to operate differently than than it was visioned. So for the listeners may not be familiar with the War Powers resolution, sometimes called the present was passed over Richard Nixon's veto by congress at the Taylor, Vietnam war, and the idea of it was congress was trying to reclaim its voice in deciding win, and where the United States would go to war and the most important provision of it is that if the US has deployed forces into hostilities or the threat of hostilities abroad, and congress has not authorized that deployment the law requires the president to bring them home to terminate that deployment within after sixty days past. This has not been a constraint on the forever war. I'm talking about the nine eleven war because congress authorized the use of military force against al-qaeda couple of weeks after a week after nine eleven and the. The decade brand under Bush, and then Obama and now Trump have stretched that authorisation. They've applied it to groups that are grew up after the original al-qaeda after nine eleven but became affiliated with it or offshoots. So Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula in Yemen. And. Al-shabaab in Somalia, most famously, of course, these logic state in Iraq and Syria, which started as al-qaeda's arrack affiliated during the Iraq war, and then broke with al-qaeda. But the government took the position under Obama that a split between two groups of one group into two groups in one keeps the brand name and the other new name doesn't mean that the pre existing authority to wage war against both factions disappears because one renamed itself that was controversial. But the controversy seems to fade it so the the fact that they can keep pointing to that two thousand one authorization for us military forces why the wars power is Lucien has not been a constraint against this metastases of the nine eleven war. I would disagree that it hasn't been at hot issue since Bush though in other respects, it was a very important issue in two twenty eleven when Abacha took the unit unilaterally that is without congress took the United States into NATO's air. A war over Libya which lasted much longer than they thought. It was going to and Obama ended up taking a very so on to keep the war going on the sixty first day made a very disputed claim that the law didn't apply to an air war like that echoing something Clinton had done in Kosovo, by the way. And so that that's seen. I think about executive power scholars as one of Obama's overreaches, or you know, places where he pushed on norms, and the most recently, congress has been trying to push the United States out of supporting the Saudi government in the United States in its war against the Hutu rebels in Yemen by trying to invoke the pas resolution to say this that our support to them are targeting assistance, or munitions refueling systems amounts to being deployed into hostilities. Even though we ourselves are not dropping bombs, and we ought to stop it. It won't work. They don't have the votes to override a veto unified got through the Senate and so forth. But. Which I think it did actually late last year. But it's it's a place where the word is on people's lips..

congress United States Obama al-qaeda Yemen Bush President Clinton Somalia president executive Iraq Senate Richard Nixon Saudi government Pakistan Libya
"charlie savage" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

02:25 min | 2 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

"But I think it's been extremely dangerous because again, it's taken are off of resisting Trump's actual policies his actual damage to the country. It's promoted this weird mccarthyite. Atmosphere where people who criticize the US government or question US foreign policy are deemed to be Russian dupes and useful idiots. It's turned our resistance into basically a giant conspiracy theory form where we're constantly searching for developments that can substantiate. This underlying belief that Trump and Russia are in cahoots. And I think with Muller's pending report were in for a disappointment. But on the plus side that will be a good opportunity for us to move on to become a real opposition and a real resistance Aaron Mattei. Thanks very much for joining us here on intercepted fix Aaron Mateo, an independent journalist. He was formerly at the real news network and democracy. Now, he currently writes for the nation magazine, and you can find him on Twitter at Aaron Matei. This week. Recent intercepted guest and New York Times. Reporter Charlie savage reported that the national security agencies vast surveillance program of the private communications of American citizens has been quote quietly, shutdown savage cited the remarks of top GOP aide over the weekend who said that the Trump administration may not even seek to renew the program. This mass surveillance borne out of the nine eleven attacks and formalized through the Patriot Act resulted in the accumulation of billions upon billions of Americans private text messages and calls. It wasn't until twenty thirteen when whistle blower Edward Snowden revealed. The true extent of this domestic spy program and the involvement of major telecom companies that congress reconsidered the seemingly unlimited powers that it had handed over to the NSA. And so a slightly more restricted program took its place. The ironically named fr. Act was signed into law by Barack Obama in two thousand fifteen the freedom act is set to expire in December. And apparently, not only has it ceased to officially operate in recent months, but congress at present has no known plans to renew it. That's according to comments made by Luke Murray..

Aaron Mateo Trump congress Aaron Mattei Charlie savage Barack Obama US Aaron Matei New York Times Edward Snowden Luke Murray Muller Twitter GOP Reporter Russia
"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

02:58 min | 2 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

"Do you think we're reaching the end of the road in in the application of AM Effion those expanded powers under? That authorization. Yes, though, it has been the case for that. For some years now various people in congress, perhaps most notably Senator Tim Kaine Virginia have been arguing that the AMF the of of two thousand one has been stretched too far. You know, it wasn't even actually against Qaeda was against the perpetrators of the nine eleven attacks who are for the most part dead suffer Zawahiri in the the few guys down at Guantanamo who maybe someday, we'll get a trial. But there's been tremendous difficulty in congress in the question of well, if we reject the executive branches stretching of it to apply to what it's doing today. What do we replace it with in? The problem is that some people don't want to place any new limits on the presidents of the executive branch of thority. They will not stand for taking power away from from the executive branch to do what it's currently doing and places like Somalia and Yemen and so forth. That's the sort of like, the Senator Tom cotton point of view, and other people's Democrats. Don't. Want to write a new blank check for a forever war? So they well, let's let's replace it with an AM that won't last three years, and then we'll sunset or that will not permit. You know, the president to use ground forces in some new place that he's not used without first coming to congress. And so and so they're not gonna vote for there's a faction is not going to vote for a blank check. There's a faction that will only vote for a blank check. And there's not not clear that that point. There's any purpose that anything can get through congress that would command majority support or or filibuster proof support. And that's why we were sort of paralyzed in this increasingly tattered legal authority remains the defacto bases of what the US government through three presidents now is doing you're right that the executive branch is desperate to keep this from coming before a judge in particular, the the stretching of it to ISIS, which is not part of Kedah anymore. And in fact is at. War with Al Qaeda was a is something they don't they don't wanna test. And they don't that. That's why they haven't brought any ISIS detainees to one Tahoe. Despite all Trump's saber rattling about how he's gonna fill it up back up with bad guys. Bad dudes. He's not brought a single prisoner there. And that is because that would immediately give someone standing to challenge. The theory that the authorize the war against ISIS and the judge would rule. No, that's a step too, far that wouldn't just result in there, not being thirty to hold that particular person. It would mean to the entire war effort against ISIS was has no legal basis. It would just mess things up from top to bottom. And that's why they've been also in the case that you mentioned this this jewel US Saudi citizen that was held for a year. They were desperate to get rid of him before they had to test whether they have legal authority to hold them in

congress executive Trump president ISIS Senator Tim Kaine Virginia Senator Tom cotton Zawahiri Qaeda US Guantanamo Somalia Yemen thority Kedah three years
"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

04:08 min | 2 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

"This has not been a constraint on the forever war. I'm talking about the nine eleven war because congress authorized the use of military force against al-qaeda couple of weeks after a week after nine eleven and the. The decade brand under Bush and Obama. And now Trump have stretched that authorization. They've applied it to groups that are grew up after the original al-qaeda after nine eleven but became affiliated with it or offshoots. So Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula in Yemen and al-shabaab in Somalia, most famously, of course, these logic state in Iraq and Syria, which started as al-qaeda's arrack affiliate during the Iraq war, and then broke with al-qaeda. But the government took the position under Obama that a split between two groups of one group into two groups in one keeps the brand name. And the other gets new name doesn't mean that the pre existing authority to wage war against both factions disappears because one renamed itself that was controversial. But the controversy seems to fade it so the the fact that they can keep pointing to that two thousand one authorization for use of military forces. Why the wars power solution has not been a constraint against the? This metastases of the nine eleven war. I would disagree that it hasn't been hot issue since Bush though, in other respects, it was a very important issue in two twenty eleven when Obama took unilaterally that is without congress took the United States into NATO's air war over Libya, which lasted much longer than they thought it was going to and Obama ended up taking a very so on the to keep the war going on the sixty first day made a very disputed claim that the law didn't apply to an air war like that echoing something Clinton had done in Kosovo, by the way. And so that that's seen. I think about executive power scholars as one of Obama's overreaches, or you know, places where he pushed on norms, and the most recently, congress has been trying to push the United States out of supporting the Saudi government in the United States in its war against the Hutu rebels in Yemen. By trying to invoke the repositories Aleutian to say, this that our support to them are targeting assistance, or munitions refueling cysts amounts to being deployed into hostilities. Even though we ourselves are not dropping bombs, and we ought to stop it. It won't work. They don't have the votes to override a veto unit. Got through the Senate and so forth. But which I think it did actually late last year. But it's it's a place where the word is on people's lips. Again. It's just basically the the takeaway is that in one way or another presidents have found ways to continue to deploy forces into combat type situations since nineteen seventy four on their own and the warp house resolution has been a failure as an attempt to reign in that practice, which was sort of a hallmark of the imperial presidency era post World War Two dating back to Truman going into Korea by himself, one of the things that congress did do, and you mentioned this earlier that the. Legal lynchpin for the modern war on terror and many of the things that that the country has done in that vein is the authorization for the use of military force. And you spoke about it earlier that keeps getting applied and keeps getting extended. Do you think maybe we're reaching the end of the road for the application of the AMF because for one it was originally passed as applied to Al Qaeda, and it hasn't to my knowledge been applied by the government, certainly in any court to the Islamic state. And I think the evidence for that. Most recently is that the US government was detaining an American citizen abroad and the question of whether the A M F applied to the Islamic state was gonna come up in the validity of that detention. But it kind of resolved itself before the DC circuit in this case was able to answer that question..

Obama congress al-qaeda United States Yemen Bush Iraq Saudi government Trump Senate Somalia Libya NATO executive Truman Syria al-shabaab Kosovo
"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

02:02 min | 2 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

"And the judge is he was nominating and pointing with spearheaded by his first White House counsel. Don, Mcgann who really deserves the credit for this were are serious judges. They're the same type of nominees that a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or any other Republican normal Republican president would also be proud to put forward, and he's broken all records is what you're alluding to in terms of the numbers of this. And especially. Compared to Obama, and the reason for that is not that Don Mcgann, Trump are more serious about getting judges through than Obama and his White House counsel's were although I do think Obama would put a little bit less priority on this, especially at first then Trump has, but it's because the rules have changed in the Senate. So Republicans were blocking Obama up and down votes on Obama's judges. Systematically, they famously not going to let him nominate anyone appoint anyone to the DC circuit to fill three vacancies there. And so Democrats in two thousand thirteen changed the rules to abolish the filibuster for nominations and law Agata bunch of judges threw in late twenty thirteen twenty fourteen and then the because now finally only up to fifty one votes was enough to confirm someone, but then Republicans took over the Senate in the twenty fourteen midterm, and they retaliated against the Democrats for having done that by we. Stopping all confirmations. And the you know that most famously happened with merit garland nomination after Justice Scalia died, but even before Justice Scalia died they had McConnell had slammed the door shut on appeals court judgeships. And so almost all the deficit in Obama's numbers. Relative to previous presidents like Bush and Clinton who got about sixty peels. Judges threw comes in those last two years when he just doesn't get any money through leaving a lot of agencies for Trump to fill by the way. And now for the first time we have well, we had it briefly in late twenty thirteen twenty fourteen..

Obama Don Mcgann Jeb Bush White House Justice Scalia Senate Trump Marco Rubio Agata bunch Clinton DC president McConnell two years
"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

04:21 min | 2 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

"That was went to the supreme court when a steel mill owner sued to get mill back in this court famously struck down what minute on it said, you can't do this in part because congress is not giving you congress get not giving not only not giving you this authority. They've created an alternative procedure for resolving labor disputes, and you can't just on your own ignore that in flouted when we're talking about emergency power in the case of Trump. We're not talking about inherent claims of executive power. We're talking about a thority that stand by thorny that congress has created for the presidency to use an exigent circumstances as a matter of law. And so the dispute is is this what congress was thinking is this really an emergency. And in a more technical sense to does what Trump wants to do here, which have the military spend military money on a structure that would help a civilian agency. Police the border does that fit within the words of the statute, it just optically though, the thing that makes it different again is using something that congress created for exigent circumstances as a way to get around what congress has chosen not to do which is to spend more money than appropriated on the structure just out of curiosity other than the steel seizure case, we know that there have already been a couple of lawsuits challenging Trump's assertion of this authority. He famously predicted from his press conference in the rose garden. We'll get sued. He was right. Are there? Other instances where this use of executive power in this reliance on the national emergencies act got challenged so quickly. I'm not aware of any previous instance in which a president's use of statutory emergency power, certainly since the national mercy's act modernized at all in nineteen seventy six was even subject to a lawsuit. And that's because it was not controversial. The president was doing what congress wanted him to do without a thorny up until now is some of this function of having a congress at least in my experience. And I started working on Capitol Hill and nineteen eighty seven for as an intern for Daniel, Patrick Moynihan. And I remember then that senators and congressmen congress people have both parties jealously guarded, the constitutional powers given to their branch, even above and beyond party. Now, it seems you have a congress that at least on the politics of it doesn't. Jealously guard those powers and progress as is that a factor here, or or is it just is it just this. This particular executive note is a factor. It's part of a broader pattern which people refer to as the the increasing polarization partisan polarization of the country as the two parties have gotten more ideologically sorted, and the sort of conservative, Democrats and liberal and moderate Republicans have disappeared as a species the ability of congress to rise above partisanship. And acting his own institutional self interest has waned in some ways, this is a the culmination of a structural flaw in the constitution based on an incorrect premise that the founders had they did not think we were going to have political parties or factions as they called them in the late eighteenth century. They thought that each lawmaker would be a. Free agent and therefore self interest in wanting your own power and prestige would lead them to push back against executive overreach. Just as the self interest of the president would lead him or her someday to push back against congressional overreach in this system of checks and balances would keep things in equilibrium. Obviously they were wrong right away. Even before, you know, George Washington was done being president. The fact, you know, the federalists in in the Jeffersonians and so forth were emerging as factions that would work together across institutional lines to try to control government. And that means that an and as this become more and more acute ideologically. It means that the whoever is in the White House. Their fellow lawmakers on the hill do not see themselves as independent and Coequal..

congress executive Trump president rose garden Jeffersonians Coequal White House Patrick Moynihan intern George Washington Daniel mill
"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

04:17 min | 2 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on Words Matter

"Congress to ask for funding for a policy congress weighing that request debating that request and deciding not to give the president as much as what he was asking for and the president saying I will claim that an emergency exists that allows me to do that thing. Anyway, none of those were in runs around congress fourteen the will of congress they were all instances in which all the previous ones in which the deputy branch was doing what congress wanted the executive branch to do when they created these statutes allowing extra flexibility to the executive branch under certain circumstances. The overwhelming majority of. Of them were about foreign policy and sanctioning various bad actors who the president determined had done something like involvement in terrorism or human rights abuses, or transnational, narcotics trafficking and win the president determines those things conditions exist. He's allowed under certain emergency power statute to play sanctions on the bad actor so that it's illegal for Americans to do business with them in their assets or frozen here. That's what congress wants to do their two of those instances where we're places where money that congress had appropriated for one purpose was re directed to a different purpose, which is more Kim to what Trump is doing now with the border wall. But they were both war situations where there was a fast moving need to build up a foreign base. One in the lead up to the Persian Gulf war by the first George Bush and the other by the second George W Bush right after nine eleven when we were preparing to. Into Afghantistan needed to build up some basing in that part of the world again, not a place where the president had gone to congress to say, I have a certain policy goal. Would you please funded in congress and said, we're not gonna give you all the money you wanted and the president purports defined an emergency that let's him do it anyway. And that's why the the claim that presidents do this all the time is superficially, accurate, but wildly misleading in that. This is not what those statutes were envisioned by lawmakers to permit when they pass them the problem being that they they wrote it in nineteen seventy six in such a X sloppy way. But it's such an open ended way. They did not say, here's you know, they left the president with president see with a lot of latitude to determine emergency exists. They didn't write in a standard that had to be met. Because you don't what the whole purpose of these things is unforeseen circumstances. And until now it has been a norm. The presidents do not abuse that thority by using it as an Enron around congress. Now that norm turns out to be not a constraint. In general, though, you go back to nineteen seventy six, obviously. Very accurately appropriately for the situation. But if you look back at that scope of presidential power that you've that you've talked about you write about from. Obviously you mentioned more situations. Abraham LINCOLN suspending the rid of AB AB corpus, obviously during a war. But then actions like Harry, Truman nationalizing, the steel industry in nineteen fifty two or tempting to is Donald Trump really acting differently or does he just communicate it and is it more a substantive departure. Or is it just I don't have to explain myself. So I'm not going to is it really different. Or is. He just not good at communicating it. And it's the style that puts people off. Well, so I think to think clearly about this. We have to break down. What kind of what would we mean when we say president invokes urgency power, the two historical Zampa lls, you just gave are not the same thing at all in that. These were those were presidents claiming they could do something just on their own is maybe an. Claim of inherent commander and chief power that than met dubious fates in the case of Lincoln and habeas corpus. Congress was not in session. When the civil war was breaking out. He did that. And then when congress returned to session, he wrote them a letter saying, I did some stuff that was probably not legal. I had to do it because you weren't here in edges required. It would you please pass a law that retroactively blesses what I did which congress did do and in eighteen sixty one and in the case of Harry Truman in the steel seizure..

Congress president Donald Trump Harry Truman Abraham LINCOLN Persian Gulf George Bush George W Bush executive Enron Kim commander
"charlie savage" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

01:48 min | 2 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

"To break down, the unitary executive theory, and how it has evolved from the Reagan Bush era to the Bush Cheney era and today to Donald Trump, I'm joined by Charlie savage. He's Washington correspondent for the New York Times, specializing in national security and legal policy issues. Charlie also, the author of several books among those his first book takeover examined the bush-cheney administration's effort to expand presidential power after nine eleven his second book power wars is an investigative history of national security and legal policy of the Obama administration. Charlie savage. Welcome back to intercepted. Thanks for having me again. So on February fourteenth, the Senate confirmed William bar to be the next attorney general and during those confirmation hearings. There was concern raised by some lawmakers over bars views on executive power, I just lay out your understanding on how William. Bar views. Presidential powers the and the executive branches relationship to congress. So to answer that question, you have to start by asking which William Bara we talking about there's the William bar who spent much of his career in the deputy branch in the Reagan, and especially the Bush forty one administration and later while out in private practice, clearly a partisan figure in terms of his commentary to news outlets and the op-eds he was writing. And then there's the William bar. We saw at that confirmation hearing who was a totally different person to the article to power inherited thority of the commander in chief. Give him the -bility to take appropriate dollars for department of defense and build a wall. I can't I without looking at the the statute..

Charlie savage William bar executive Reagan William Bara Donald Trump Obama administration bush-cheney administration New York Times Cheney Senate Bush department of defense congress attorney private practice
"charlie savage" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

All In with Chris Hayes

03:19 min | 3 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

"This guy here is what the shows from Charlie savage near times piece. The application contains eight page link explanation that does alert the court that the person who commissioned Mr. Steele's research was I quote here likely looking for information to discredit Mr. Trump's campaign that was like the whole thing that was hours of television programming while you're absolutely right. And of course they embellish it by saying, there's no mention of Clinton. There's no mention of the DNC. Well, that's because in five applications, you minimize the names of US persons and organizations. So as an appears in the FIS applications candidate won and candidate to, but there's no disguising the fact that court wasn't formed of of the political bias and. Judge after judge four judges appointed by three Republican presidents all found probable cause for the original Warrenton, the extensions, and that's that speaks to the support of the evidence supporting those applications. There's this weird through the looking glass arguments about this closure through all this in which you have house intelligence committee members from the Republican sides, kind of collaborating with the White House to push for certain kinds of disclosure. They want access to certain documents. They wanna see supper DOJ. There's a concern from DOJ and I think from House Democrats that will compromise investigation. In this case, my understanding is that you are opposed to release this document, but I have to say as a reporter or someone who's followed Pfizer for a long time, it seems to be a good thing. Americans have access to this document and sunshine is a disinfectant. Well, look at this point after you had the noon as memo. Essentially, cherry pick information mislead the public, and we had issue are corrective memo. Then there's a little additional damage that's done in issuing a redacted version of the FIS, but we should've never gone down this road to begin with. It was all bogus trumped up effort to validate something Donald Trump said in a tweet and that is I was illegally surveilled by the Obama administration Trump Tower. Now that is nonsense and has been declared to be nonsense by both the former director of the CIA as well as the director of national telecasts director. But nonetheless this effort by Nunez and Gaddi and others has been an attempt to try to somehow justify that blatantly false statement by the president, your colleague, Jerry now, the restricted as at Devin. Nunes lied. Is Jerry now the correct devonte as lie? Well, yes. I mean, this is a fall. Patently false, probably false statement, but not just by Nunez other signed off on it to trae Gaddi and indeed the entire majority signed off on that Nunez memoranda now Nunez hadn't read the FIS up. So he signed off on a blindly, but Trey Goudy had read it tree gatty knew it was false. These arguments they were making but nonetheless pushed forward. Now heap sounds a different now that he wants to be a judge, but that's no forgiving those misrepresentations and the denigration of the Justice department of the intelligence community. All in this misguided effort to defend the president, whatever the cost may be Representative. Adam Schiff. Thanks for being with me tonight. Thank you. Had the White House today. Pronounce the president is thinking of revoking the security clearances from former officials that have been critical of his administration. That story is next..

Nunez Donald Trump FIS White House president trae Gaddi DOJ Charlie savage Adam Schiff Trump Tower director Warrenton Jerry DNC US Mr. Steele Clinton Pfizer Obama Nunes
"charlie savage" Discussed on MSNBC Rachel Maddow (audio)

MSNBC Rachel Maddow (audio)

01:58 min | 3 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on MSNBC Rachel Maddow (audio)

"Well tomorrow a veteran officer who ran one of the secrets the prisons where the cia tortured people she's going to have her confirmation hearing tomorrow to be the director of the cia we do not know if gina hassle helped torture khalid sheikh mohammed personally or if she oversaw officers who carried out that torture we do know that she personally oversaw one of the torture sites and that she played a key role in the destroying the videotaped evidence of those torture sessions even though the cia had been ordered to preserve those tapes but get this talk about a newsday today that confirmation hearing for genus built around the confirmation hearing again is tomorrow charlie savage is now reporting at the new york times that khalid sheikh mohammed the supposed nine eleven mastermind guy the guy who was waterboarded one hundred eighty three times in cia custody khalid sheikh mohammed has now filed an emergency request with the military commission that is trying him at guantanamo he's asking for emergency permission from the judge in his case he wants the judge to allow him to provide information to the senate committee in time for gina hospitals confirmation hearing tomorrow khalid sheikh mohammed wants to give them a statement about gina hassle again we know that this guy was tortured by the way we know that gina hospital ran one of the torture sites at the time that he was in custody we don't know if she tortured him and we don't know exactly what the information is that he wants to provide to the senate but he has asked permission to give the senate something it is reportedly six paragraphs of written information that he wants to handover to the senate committee considering her confirmation we don't know what's in those six paragraphs and we don't know what the judge will say we don't know if the judge will allow it to go to the senate in time for tomorrow's hearing.

officer cia director charlie savage new york times senate committee gina hospital senate khalid sheikh mohammed
"charlie savage" Discussed on The Daily

The Daily

01:51 min | 4 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on The Daily

"Two the trump administration's rapid overhaul of the federal courts how republican lawyers and lawmakers are working together to install conservative judges at a rate not seen in decades it's monday november twenty s something that people aren't talking about is how many judges we've had approved whether it be the court of appeals circuit judges whether it be district judges we have tremendous right now under review so just after christmas in 2016 a group of conservative lawyers gathered at a law firm called jones day which is in the shadows at the capital about a block away from congress where in a room on a large whiteboard a lawyer named donald mcgann who had been the top trump campaign lawyer and must who is going to be the top white house lawyer in the new trump administration drew up something of a battle plan for all the vacancies on the federal appeals court that president elect trump was going to inherit charlie savage has been reporting on the plan for the times trump wanted mcgann and the legal team working for him to move expeditiously and make a strong priority of maximizing their opportunity to reshape the federal judiciary and i want to say that we will set records in terms of the number of judges added to really put a lot of very young very conservative judges into all the opening survey we're inheriting from president obama and those that we are soon to open up i think it's one of the big unsung things of this administration.

christmas law firm congress donald mcgann president trump charlie savage obama jones
"charlie savage" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

02:02 min | 4 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

"I mean one thing that shifted obviously the idea that the us is fighting for the to hunt down the lord's resistance army that's gone but it's interesting this is just as part of a process that began in robot just in the past week there's been three or four drone strikes in somalia there are now i think upwards of four hundred us troops that are deployed in somalia i think most of them are based at the eight not a airport but we have been hearing increased reporting on us troops out in the field in somalia my sense isn't that like trump is is sort of renewing a focus or turning up the heat in africa as much as it is that we're seeing the agenda of careerists at the cia or the military being able to implement an agenda in a more radical way than they may be were able to under obama my off on that no i i think that the anecdotal evidence tells us and there's been a small amount that's been leaked out were reported on which has under obama cia and dod felt very constrained by what they could do and where they could go so in january within a week he goes to he orders the seal team six rate in yemen in march there was a seal team six a operator who was killed in somalia on on operation where they were supposed to be uh just advising on uh you know train and assist or advise and assist and so what we're finding is at places where quietly the us had moved into africa into subsaharan africa west africa parts of east africa where there had been less concentration all of that has been ramped up because the um approvals have been delegated down no longer requires of the white house to deliberate make a decision about whether deploy people so i think that we haven't seen yet uh the intensity of it how how intense it is in terms of the change from one administration but there's no question that there has been more going on as a result of the new administration why are we recently add charlie savage of the new york times on this program talking about and he's the reporter.

us somalia cia obama dod yemen charlie savage new york times africa east africa
"charlie savage" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

01:38 min | 4 years ago

"charlie savage" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

"That's what the courts are supposed to do including in cases involving cartoonish villains like donald trump and his cronies now maybe this will lead to indictments showing a criminal conspiracy between trump and vladimir putin or maybe it will simply uncover noncriminal activities that are deeply offensive to a lot of americans time in evidence will tell to break all this down we're joined by two people can white is a criminal defense attorney in los angeles and a former assistant us attorney he's the main force behind the blog popat and charlie savage is an investigative reporter at the new york times it's also the author of to really great books takeover the return of the imperial presidency that was about the bush era and power wars which covered the obama administration's counterterrorism policy can wait charlie savage welcomed intercepted thank you happy to be here thank you what is the strategy that robert muller is engaging in here with this indictment and also the plea agreement of papa dopoulos of course moeller is not talking to me although if he's out there listening i'm happy to talk to you but i would speculate that what he's trying to do very hard is persuade paul manafort to flip and start cooperating and provide information about the trump campaign's interactions with the russian government in exchange for leniency on these otherwise unrelated charges he was indicted with yesterday regarding his failure to register as a foreign agent they lobbyist for ukraine and money laundering in various other financial crimes related to that matter.

papa dopoulos money laundering assistant us attorney vladimir putin financial crimes ukraine russian government paul manafort moeller donald trump robert muller obama administration new york times investigative reporter charlie savage los angeles attorney